Shwa

So are you saying that qantum mechanics has no application in this ordinary existence? That is, nothing to do with, say, modern computing technology, medicine, biology, energy industries, etc. Or do the above sectors not count as "oridnary existence?"

How about sports? Can you gain objective knowledge from the athletic processes?

I don't see where c.r is advocating for a direct link from one brain to another at the quantum level. What I see is c.r saying that in the reality as posited by the theory of quantum mechanics it would seem that all of the elements of the universe are made up of the same things and are interconnected with each other in smoe way - obviously or discreetly. Now I am not about to start a quantum traceroute exercise for an idea to pass from one to another; or an idea to pass from one to many; or for an idea to pass from many to many. But I can be assured - according to quantum theory reality - that each element in that communication path interacts with other elements on the level of the constituent particles and that each element has rules and laws that it must obey to be able to communicate that information from the ions in one brain, to the electrical transmition of signals, to the reception of photons through receptors to the reconstitution of those ions in another brain into a coherent message. Shannon's Law on this level? According to your example, such interactions could not occur. And yet they do. Perhaps this is not the fault of Shannon's Law, but of it's usage. I also do not see where c.r's ideas contradict with the use of senses to organize experience. But even senses are subject to the laws and rules of quantum mechanics and - as it seems to me - these laws and rules are expanding, not receding. That is, we are learning more, not less. So I think these sorts of ideas - the imagining of chemical interactions in the sphere of human communication will become more prevalent in science and scientific thought and they will have real world implications in many technologies. Should prove interesting.

I dunno about that - collective conciousness = telepathy? That is an equation that is unequal on terms. Telepathy: communication from one mind to another by extrasensory means Collective Conciousness: refers to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society So I don't see those terms interchangeable. To that I add: Collective Unconciousness: a part of the unconscious mind, expressed in humanity and all life forms with nervous systems, and describes how the structure of the psyche autonomously organizes experience. Of course the pioneer in this field Carl Jung, as we all know, is completely discredited as a scientist right? No place for mystics within science at all of course. The problem with Jung - as with Freud - is that they dared take on these questions - about conciousness and unconciousness. They dared to venture into the ethereal and try and make sense of it. What were they thinking?? (you can find out by the many books they wrote, or the many books their followers wrote, or the many books everyone else who was influenced by them wrote.) Here is an interesting quote from another crackpot pseudo-scientist (this guy was a patent clerk for gawdsakes): Oh wait, I am one of those Internet crazies who invokes Einstein when discussing religion, spirituality and quantum reality: Einstein, 1954 So now, if you would be so kind, I would like to hear your arguments against Jung and Einstein.

Now you are dodging which is quite unscientific and somewhat dishonest. So I will ask you one more time, directly: Subjective knowledge cannot be used in the scientific process to garner reliable consistent results. Do you believe your statement to be objective knowledge?

We've looped now. Recall this from the earlier reference from Wikipedia: What do you suppose the author of this article means? For instance, what is matter made of? Classical physics right? You have no problem extending classic physics into the quantum mechanical world, but what about the rules of quantum mechanics being extended into the classical world? You know for such things as radiation, nuclear physics, chemistry...are you saying that there is a certain level of nature that quantum mechanics does not apply? I guess you are saying this: But again, we are looping: Is that what is being suggested? Or is the suggestion more like elements in a system having influence on other elements? QM is much more than just stray electrons. Your examples are like using a car to describe all forms of transportation. I don't recall anyone saying anything about telepathy except you. Is that how you identify this elemental interaction on the quantum level? Here is a cool theory, you should check it out. Here is the theory at the qm level. You justified that claim using electron interaction only. (you took the phrase 'electron soup' literally) But is your argument as solid with all the other elements in the system? For instance, I can see light that was generated thousands of years ago with my very own eyes. I can see the effect of that light on others. I have seen that light generate art, poetry and inspire myths. Fundamental interaction. Television. Oops, I used electrons as an example. But I am sure, but the time you read this part, you get the idea. Really? Then what you are actually seeing when you read this? Mere words on a screen? I am not sure what you are referring to here.

I really pity the poor English Canadians who spew this kind of juvenile nonsense because it makes them look like a type of Nazi.

No seriously, is that your final answer? Yes or no?

Well you should, since I am agreeing with Canadien, said so, and you replied. That shows you care. Which is a compliment since his posts are factual and insightful. Except for the ones that contained references, citations and quotes from legitimate sources. Which was most of them. But I will grant that calling you a tête carré was personal opinion, but certainly not insignificant nor meaningless.

I see this to a certain degree, however... do you see the word "power" interchangebale with the phrase "power structure?" From Merrian-Webster: ": a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed" It would seem that, given time, most political organizations experience revolutionary changes - civil wars, revolutions (by name), coups. Do you have an example or two of any political organization that has evolved over a significant amount of time without any fundamental changes? How so?

Are you sure about that? Is that your final answer?

How would you refer to protons, neutrons and electrons, wave-particle duality notwithstanding, on the quantum level? So brain matter is exempt from the principles of quantum mechanics? How about the neuroelectrical signals? Are they exempt too? Could you explain to me what an 'idea' is, if there is no physical properties to it? Are you saying that ideas are supernatural in some way? Isn't "physical location" just another category? Do you think that if you had a microscope that could actually show two or more distinct atoms of carbon, you could distinguish between one that is yours and one that came from something else? Do your atoms have labels on them? How about your ideas? Haven't seen that yet. Just some reference to a biblical passage.

OK, so - to re-iterate - science (to you) is the only way to obtain knowledge. Correct?

I am neither and I heartily agree with Canadien which would seem to prove his point.

Been following along, happily lurking. A couple of questions and comments if I may: This is confusing for two reasons. 1. Are you saying that communism, after achieving power, described itself as only having power as its main objective (in retrospect I mean, is that what they teach their populous about their original intentions?) 2. It would seem to me that - if the objective was seizing power for its own purposes - would apply to every other political movement that seized power throughout history. I am wary of such blanket statements without a qualification. Could you qualify this in other terms to better illustrate what you mean please? I presume by "men" you mean "people?" By and large we are organized so that 'society and the economy' determine most areas of interest through administration-by-agency which are, for all intents and purposes, fairly autonomous at the regional and city level and below (with a political caveat though). In our case people have agreed upon a broad course of government which moves from the very general (federal) to the specific - provincial, municipal, city, and so on, including all types of public groups. I have access to the formal and informal agencies of these various layers of government and I interact with them according to the subject areas that suit my requirement. I don't see this because I see administration-by-agency. Education is administered through very many levels of agency and each level has an area of responsibility that is a subset of it's parent's responsibilities until you have the actual delivery agency (i.e. a school). Those service delivery agents can be finely tuned to reflect the requirements of its constituents while still reflecting the policy of its parent organization. Again there are caveats, and they are political, but overall I see this system as fairly rational.

OK, generosity is out. I wasn't trying to be generous, just succinct. So can his original assertion stand up in it's entirety? Let's look: wave-particle duality - "In physics and chemistry, wave–particle duality is the concept that all energy (and thus all matter) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. Being a central concept of quantum mechanics..." (emphasis is mine) So on this statement, he has a point yes? neuroelectic - "of or relating to the electrical phenomena (as potentials or signals) generated by the nervous system" (including the brain I add) So with his first point, his second point makes sense. Remember though, this is at the level of quantum 'reality.' perception - "awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation" So now, what are "sensations?" Well, the bottom line is that they are neuroelectric in nature right? Sensations are signals that are interpreted by the brain. This could be problematic, but I choose to see this statement in terms of an overall system governed by rules. I think c.r is saying that all ideas - products of the brain and thus neuroelectricity, are built upon other ideas from other people (energy beings at the quantum relaity level?) Which would suggest to me that c.r sees knowledge as 'built up' over time. So I think the premise here is that any interaction - that is, a material separation of oneself in relation to another (people, place or thing) from this 'quantum reality system' is not possible. I presume this to be an extention of the social concept that 'no man is an island.' "Individual thoughts are merely delusions in which we pretend we are smarter, or faster, or more cunning than every other individual we perceive out there." This refers to categories-for-example (smarter, faster, cunning) that could reinforce the thought that we are separate from another on the quantum reality level. I think we both agree that we are all made of the same stuff. This stuff is connected (chemcial bonds) to other stuff - we call it water, air, land...which form other systems we are a part of in the larger scale 'reality.' This is what I find interesting, a sort of paradox. I cannot find anything to suggest that, at the quantum reality level, a concept such as 'self' exists. At the quantum reality level, "I" do not exist at all, let alone 'apart from everything else' because there is nothing to distinguish "my" stuff from anthing else. Perhaps the idea here is that, materially or on the physical level, we are all made of the same stuff, but have devised categories to distinguish the various components of this stuff. But even still, the thoughts of those categories - the physical processes, are still made of the same stuff as everything else. So, even being ungenerous, there is something to what c.r says and what is written refers only to the material universe as far as I can tell. Where does c.r say anything about 'spiritual' bonds? I thought c.r was referring to chemical bonds actually.

Perhaps math and logic are the processes and science is the result. However, that is not useful at this time. How about intutition and emotion as procesess to determine knowledge? How about morals and ethics?

What about math or logic?

Body heat! (and then I am sure there are chemical reactions that occur between two people when they are physically close) For a high school understanding, yours is good enough for me!; but I think we are off track a bit. C.R made this statement: Now to cheat a little bit, I selectively edit this to mean: Now whether 'quantum' is the correct term or not, I see this point to mean that at one physical level or another, "we" are reduced to a point where there is no distinguishable material parts that would constitute an individual personality. "We" are all made of the same 'stuff' that everything else is made of and that this 'stuff' operates within an interactive system governed by laws and so on; that "we" cannot be removed from this system in the material sense in that the 'law must be obeyed.' I am not so sure that C.R believes that individual thought is impossible, just that the thought we are some how separate from this "stuff" is delusional. I can see that. Now we exist and interact with many systems - biological, ecological, weather systems and so on, and even in these systems there are actions you could take that could affect someone else. Does kimmie's fart in Alberta create the weather system that freezes Ontario in the dark? Someone else can do the Chaos Theory math on that, but I often wonder if there are elemental actions - direct or indirect - that influence other elemental actions within a given system. We know this to be true for some systems, but is it true for all systems? Sort of like a 'law of systems.'

This: Is now this: For what purpose? To understand that the principles from quantum mechanics have direct implications in the macro-atomic world? With the exception of "your brain" of course. This from a guy who wants to debate the merits of his massless brain faeries.

Really? So the mechanical affects of neutron radiation on a macro-atomic system like your brain will have no affect on your 'self?" That it stands to reason that quantum mechanics has nothing to say like hyper-macro-atomic things like, I dunno, black holes? And yet it seems there are many people trying to apply it. The only "Dualim" I am referring to is the particle-wave duality. Any 'divination' being done is purely yours. You're cherry picking.

Very good point, but I am not interested in religion as a medium, let's stick with science. So if you agree that science is a medium to knowledge - objective truth - this suggests another question: are there other mediums known to man that also convey knowledge or is science all there is?

How so?

By medium I mean a process or set of processes by which we gain information or as M-W defines it, "a channel or system of communication" Does this make sense?

Mediation - the process of mediation, "to transmit as intermediate mechanism or agency" Thus we use "science" to mediate between ourselves - our minds - and the world (or universe if you prefer). Now, we can go out into the world and examine it, but through the scientific process can we obtain knowledge (objective truth). Would you agree with this use of the word and if so, do you understand how science mediates in the sense that it provides a 'medium' for our understanding or knowledge?